Definition of Relevance
High
- Evidence is relevant if it:
(1) Has any tendency to make existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the case
(2) More probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence.
General Rule of Admissibility
- Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible.
- All relevant evidence is admissible, unless:
(1) It is kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence (hearsay, privilege, public policy exclusions, etc.); or
(2)Court uses its Rule 403 discretion to keep it out
Rule 403 (Court’s Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence)
High
Ct may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger of:
(1) Danger of unfair prejudice (there is a danger that jury will decide case on emotional basis)
(2) Confusion of the issues (evidence creates side issue)
(3) Misleading jury (there is danger that jury will give undue weight to evidence)
(4) Undue delay
(5) Waste of time
(6) Needlessly cumulative (repetitive) evidence
- Note: You’ll encounter a few isolated situations where the judge must use a different balancing test to determine
whether evidence is admissible, but Rule 403 is the standard
balancing test for most evidence.
Tip
Unfair surprise: not valid ground to exclude relevant
evidence.
Unfairly Prejudicial
High
Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when evidence is
(1) unnecessary, AND
(2) might cause jury to improperly sympathize/ dislike a party.
- As an alternative to excluding evidence completely under Rule 403, ct could limit unfair prejudice to party by limiting scope of evidence/examination to specific topics.
Plaintiff’s Accident History—Prior False Claims
or Same Bodily Injury
Low
- Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims/involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show invalidity of present claim
- May be admissible
(1) Evidence that P has made previous similar false to prove that present claim is likely to be false.
(2) Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where cause of P’s damages is at issue. If P previously injured same part of their body, evidence may be admitted to show P’s condition is attributable (in whole/in part) to prior injury not current accident.
Tip
When faced with an Evidence question, always ask
yourself, “For what purpose is the evidence being
offered?”
Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
LOW
- Evidence of prior accidents/injuries caused by same event/condition & occurring under substantially similar
circumstances is admissible to prove:
(1) existence of a dangerous condition,
(2) that dangerous condition was cause of present injury, and
(3) D had notice of dangerous condition (if other accident occurred b/f P’s accident).
Absence of Similar Accidents
LOW
- Evidence of the absence of complaints is admissible to show D’s lack of knowledge of danger.
Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
LOW
Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be
admissible to prove the party’s present motive/intent in current case.
Sales of Similar Property
- Evidence of sales of similar personal/real property around same time period is admissible to prove property’s value.
- Prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally aren’t admissible
Rebutting Claim of Impossibility
- Requirement that prior occurrences be similar to litigated act may be relaxed when used to rebut a claim of impossibility (ex. D’s claim the car will not go above 50 mph can be rebutted by showing occasions when car went more than 50 mph).
Causation
LOW
- Complicated issues of causation may be established by
evidence concerning other times, events, or persons (ex. damage to nearby homes caused by D’s blasting is
relevant to prove D’s blasting damaged P’s home).
Habit and Business Routine Evidence
Low
- Evidence of a person’s habit (or evidence of routine
practice of an org) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that person (or org) acted in accordance w/habit on occasion at issue in case. - Habit describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances.
- 2 defining characteristics of habit:
(1) frequency of conduct and
(2) particularity of circumstances.
Tip
Watch for key words such as “always,” “invariably,” “instinctively,” and “automatically” in a question’s fact pattern. These words may indicate habit
Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care
Low
- Evidence as to how others in the same trade/industry have acted in the recent past may be offered as evidence of the appropriate SOC (to show how the party in current case should have acted).
- Industry custom isn’t conclusive on this point; ex. an entire industry may be acting negligently
